3
of Gibraltar.
The UK replied that its position was that
Gibraltar was a territory covered by the EEC Treaties and that it was a "European territory" for the purposes of Article 60 of the
1968 Convention. The UK would wish to reserve a right to make a
declaration of extension of the present convention in respect of
Gibraltar, but this was not intended to embarrass Spain in any
way, but more to secure the effective operation of the Convention. (These points were explained further in a private conversation with the Spanish representative Desantes.) Portugal
indicated that it wished to reserve its position to make a
declaration of extension in respect of Macao.
Uniform judicial interpretation (Protocol No. 2 Working Document
No. 5)
7.
The Netherlands at this point raised again an old question of creating a new supreme jurisdiction to take references on the Parallel Convention. This received no support from any other delegation nor from the Chairman. Germany made the point that the present Protocol seemed to be rather vague in respect of past
judgments of the ECJ. It was agreed to make some attempt to reformulate the text to distinguish between past and future judgments of the ECJ on the 1968 Convention.
8. There was a confused and acrimonious discussion on the role
and function of the "contact committee". Germany, Netherlands
and the UK expressed themselves to be somewhat sceptical as to
the use of this committee. The UK stressed that there could be
no question of judges on this committee discussing pending cases. This point of view was supported by Italy and conceded by the Commission (Taschner). Spain suggested that the committee should have the task of submitting a report every five years on the working of the Parallel Convention. Germany indicated that its reservations were related to the composition of the committee: for Germany it was important only to have judges on the committee. The United Kingdom said that it would not object to
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.